Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:
> So, don't arguments for not defining EQV? on procedures also extend to
> not defining CONS on procedures?
No, because even if the procedure you extract from a pair is not the
procedure you put in it, it will be operationally equivalent. So as
long as the only thing that matters about a procedure is its behavior
when invoked, all is well. It's when you try to treat the procedure
as an object with identity ("no entity without identity", says Quine)
that you get into trouble with the R6RS semantics. Thus for example
memq/memv/member cannot find a procedure key in the list reliably, nor
can you be sure that if you use a procedure as the key in a hashtable
that you will be able to find that entry when you look for it.
--
Don't be so humble. You're not that great. John Cowan
--Golda Meir co...@ccil.org
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
